Need advice: Panasonic FZ35 vs Canon SX20

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul Ciszek, Nov 30, 2009.

  1. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    I am trying to chose between a Panasonic Lumix FZ35 and a Canon
    PowerShot SX20 IS. According to one salesman, the Panasonic is
    supposed to have better quality optics and faster electronics;
    I don't know enough about photography to tell if this online
    review is agreeing with that assessment or not:

    http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/outdoor_results.shtml

    http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/verdict.shtml

    Most of my use will be outdoor nature photography, both landscape
    and ultra-closeup (flowers, lichens, minerals, etc.). I care only
    about the quality of the captured image; any post-processing I can
    do on a computer. I do not expect video to play a large role.

    Does anyone here have any personal experience with either (or better
    yet, both) of these cameras that they would care to share?

    --
    Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
    pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
    Autoreply is disabled |
    Paul Ciszek, Nov 30, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Paul Ciszek" <> wrote in message
    news:hf1i10$kb1$...
    > I am trying to chose between a Panasonic Lumix FZ35 and a Canon
    > PowerShot SX20 IS. According to one salesman, the Panasonic is
    > supposed to have better quality optics and faster electronics;


    Yes, one the Panasonics I've used the optics are better than Canon, and
    Panasonic don't do as much image processing, leading to sharper but
    slightly noisier (more "grain") images. Your choice!

    To compare features side-by-side:

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...meras=canon_sx20is,panasonic_dmcfz35&show=all

    Purely on that comparison, I would go with the Panasonic as it has a wider
    field-of-view, and a bigger aperture at maximum zoom. It's smaller and
    lighter as well. Neither camera (with a very small 12MP sensor) will
    produce as good image quality as a DSLR with a good lens, but I'm sure you
    already know that.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 1, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Ciszek

    NameHere Guest

    On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 07:42:52 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

    >"Paul Ciszek" <> wrote in message
    >news:hf1i10$kb1$...
    >> I am trying to chose between a Panasonic Lumix FZ35 and a Canon
    >> PowerShot SX20 IS. According to one salesman, the Panasonic is
    >> supposed to have better quality optics and faster electronics;

    >
    >Yes, one the Panasonics I've used the optics are better than Canon, and
    >Panasonic don't do as much image processing, leading to sharper but
    >slightly noisier (more "grain") images. Your choice!
    >
    >To compare features side-by-side:
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...meras=canon_sx20is,panasonic_dmcfz35&show=all
    >
    >Purely on that comparison, I would go with the Panasonic as it has a wider
    >field-of-view, and a bigger aperture at maximum zoom. It's smaller and
    >lighter as well. Neither camera (with a very small 12MP sensor) will
    >produce as good image quality as a DSLR with a good lens, but I'm sure you
    >already know that.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >David


    You mean like how these smaller sensor G9 and G11 P&S cameras beat the new
    Canon D7 DSLR?

    http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/

    Or how this very small sensor SX10 beats another DSLR?

    http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml

    Or maybe you meant this page, where a small sensor P&S camera can now
    compete with a medium-format Hasselblad, even when that Hasselblad is
    securely mounted on a tripod and the shutter tripped by a remote-release.
    Yet the P&S camera is only balanced on top and the shutter pressed with a
    finger. And still they can't tell the images apart between the two based on
    image quality alone.

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

    Is that what you meant by not being able to produce "as good" image quality
    as a DSLR, because smaller sensor P&S cameras can actually create BETTER
    image quality than a DSLR? Is that what you meant?

    You must have. Only an idiot troll with no real photography experience
    would try to say something that is in direct opposition to all the real
    evidence.
    NameHere, Dec 1, 2009
    #3
  4. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <0O3Rm.10423$>,
    David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >Purely on that comparison, I would go with the Panasonic as it has a wider
    >field-of-view, and a bigger aperture at maximum zoom. It's smaller and
    >lighter as well. Neither camera (with a very small 12MP sensor) will
    >produce as good image quality as a DSLR with a good lens, but I'm sure you
    >already know that.


    Rather, I figured that since I can't understand the photographerese
    in the cameralabs articles I linked to well enough to determine if
    they were saying one is better than the other, I must not need an
    SLR yet.

    --
    Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
    pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
    Autoreply is disabled |
    Paul Ciszek, Dec 1, 2009
    #4
  5. "Paul Ciszek" <> wrote in message
    news:hf396a$gld$...
    []
    > Rather, I figured that since I can't understand the photographerese
    > in the cameralabs articles I linked to well enough to determine if
    > they were saying one is better than the other, I must not need an
    > SLR yet.


    I was responding to your remark about image quality important. Many of
    today's DSLRs have an automatic mode which works in a similar way to that
    on a compact camera, but you may want to use less automation to get more
    control of the settings once you learn more about photography, and that
    applies equally to DSLRs as is does to small sensor cameras.

    In ideal taking conditions, small-sensor cameras can produce good quality
    images, but if the light is poor, and the camera's sensitivity needs to be
    increased (and cameras will do this automatically for you), the "noise" in
    the image will increase, leading to a grainy appearance and some loss of
    detail. With a DSLR this grain only appears in much lower lighting
    conditions than with a small-sensor camera, enabling you to take good
    pictures where otherwise you might only get a blur or a very grainy image.
    The lenses on DSLRs can be changed, so that you can buy ones far better
    than those typically supplied on small-sensor cameras. These benefits
    come with a size, weight and cost penalty, though.

    Probably either model would suit your needs - handle both in the shop and
    see which you prefer.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 1, 2009
    #5
  6. On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:40:06 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

    >"Paul Ciszek" <> wrote in message
    >news:hf396a$gld$...
    >[]
    >> Rather, I figured that since I can't understand the photographerese
    >> in the cameralabs articles I linked to well enough to determine if
    >> they were saying one is better than the other, I must not need an
    >> SLR yet.

    >
    >I was responding to your remark about image quality important. Many of
    >today's DSLRs have an automatic mode which works in a similar way to that
    >on a compact camera, but you may want to use less automation to get more
    >control of the settings once you learn more about photography, and that
    >applies equally to DSLRs as is does to small sensor cameras.
    >
    >In ideal taking conditions, small-sensor cameras can produce good quality
    >images, but if the light is poor, and the camera's sensitivity needs to be
    >increased (and cameras will do this automatically for you), the "noise" in
    >the image will increase, leading to a grainy appearance and some loss of
    >detail.


    Yet pro photographers have been taking photos on ASA25, ASA64, ASA100, and
    ASA200 all their lives for nearly a century. Higher ISOs are only required
    by those that don't know how to use a camera properly--beginner
    snapshooters.

    > With a DSLR this grain only appears in much lower lighting
    >conditions than with a small-sensor camera, enabling you to take good
    >pictures where otherwise you might only get a blur or a very grainy image.


    Again proving that you don't even know how to use a camera properly.

    >The lenses on DSLRs can be changed, so that you can buy ones far better
    >than those typically supplied on small-sensor cameras.


    While you miss shots and get dust on your sensor so all the photos that you
    take for the rest of that session after you have changed your lens are now
    ruined. If you get any at all, considering by the time you change lenses
    your chances for having captured that shot are now long gone.

    > These benefits
    >come with a size, weight and cost penalty, though.


    The only real penalty comes from trying to use last-century's DSLR designs.
    (Would you like to see that 27-points list again? Or did you never read it
    yet?) Those who know how to use cameras find no penalties and nothing but
    gains by using high-quality P&S cameras.
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Dec 1, 2009
    #6
  7. Paul Ciszek

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:46:57 +0000, Paul Ciszek wrote:

    > I am trying to chose between a Panasonic Lumix FZ35 and a Canon
    > PowerShot SX20 IS. According to one salesman, the Panasonic is supposed
    > to have better quality optics and faster electronics; I don't know
    > enough about photography to tell if this online review is agreeing with
    > that assessment or not:
    >
    > http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/

    outdoor_results.shtml
    >
    > http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/

    verdict.shtml
    >
    > Most of my use will be outdoor nature photography, both landscape and
    > ultra-closeup (flowers, lichens, minerals, etc.). I care only about the
    > quality of the captured image; any post-processing I can do on a
    > computer. I do not expect video to play a large role.
    >
    > Does anyone here have any personal experience with either (or better
    > yet, both) of these cameras that they would care to share?


    For starters, I can just about guarantee that the salesman knows less
    about it that you do. Your best bet: handle them both - see which one
    feels better and has more intuitive (to you) menus.
    ray, Dec 2, 2009
    #7
  8. Paul Ciszek

    SMS Guest

    Paul Ciszek wrote:

    <snip>

    > I care only about the quality of the captured image;


    Clearly you _do not_ care about the quality of the captured image if
    you're choosing between the FZ35 and the SX20.

    What you're doing requires a D-SLR for quality images. There's no nice
    way to put it.
    SMS, Dec 2, 2009
    #8
  9. On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:15:21 -0800, SMS <> wrote:

    >Paul Ciszek wrote:
    >
    ><snip>
    >
    >> I care only about the quality of the captured image;

    >
    >Clearly you _do not_ care about the quality of the captured image if
    >you're choosing between the FZ35 and the SX20.
    >
    >What you're doing requires a D-SLR for quality images. There's no nice
    >way to put it.



    Dear Resident Pretend-Photographer DSLR-Troll,

    Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
    bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
    continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a
    virtual-photographer newsgroup-troll and a fool.

    If nothing else, be sure to read reasons 4, 26, and 27. What fun! :)


    1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
    existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
    wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and
    models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your
    photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can
    far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or
    will ever be made for larger format cameras.

    2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than
    any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used
    with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original
    aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
    f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
    high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
    photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
    of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
    directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
    JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
    lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
    empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
    2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
    any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
    whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
    sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
    decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
    more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
    aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent).
    Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their
    teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame
    180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than
    any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters
    can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic
    aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this
    allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm
    equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own
    lens.

    3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than
    larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic
    Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

    4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent)
    sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much
    smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures
    and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for
    DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than
    DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per
    lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best
    DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example
    http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
    When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that
    the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the
    amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x
    P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens.
    After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th
    the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get
    comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length
    ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or
    equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at
    the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a
    heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer
    focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment
    to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR
    you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
    external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc.
    etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial
    DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their
    banks.

    5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera
    plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing
    just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would
    require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in
    the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that
    *might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to
    lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.)
    You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a
    wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You
    also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
    stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
    lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
    inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.

    6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer,
    you will not be barred from using your camera at public events,
    stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots
    you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious
    clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's
    images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not
    endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by
    alerting them to your presence.

    7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
    allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
    response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you
    may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where
    any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance.
    Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware
    into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time
    allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for
    unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you
    may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a
    rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a
    mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse
    hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the
    creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all
    here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )

    8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
    http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast
    subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the
    need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone.
    Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane
    shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when
    photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions
    example-image link in #10.)

    9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
    shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
    http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_&_Flash-Sync
    without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter
    flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the
    shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to
    those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the
    faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your
    camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when
    using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter
    the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras
    where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast
    single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of
    a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second,
    then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't
    require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be
    used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that
    can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
    http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html

    10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
    limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
    (focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
    http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
    do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground,
    90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously
    loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily
    damaged, expensive repair costs, etc.

    11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
    environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
    vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street;
    you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot
    (fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete
    while you do; and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos
    that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous
    photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of
    unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like
    food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been
    able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks.

    12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer
    focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent
    macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements.
    All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating,
    natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the
    quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with
    nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters
    who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the
    same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do
    then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
    macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even
    your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the
    DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and
    the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)

    13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo
    audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature
    where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong.
    E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living
    field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't
    miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like
    the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion,
    or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of
    the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery
    of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of
    the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with
    you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of
    human history one day.

    14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your
    final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your
    composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With
    the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area
    alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your
    electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your
    exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from
    the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display,
    ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens.

    15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
    settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and
    sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as
    light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in
    total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other
    multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of
    nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames
    of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural
    behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is
    not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting
    and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an
    irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.)

    16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly
    100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither
    scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence.
    Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your
    direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some
    artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature.

    17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the
    greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence,
    with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving
    subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A
    leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will
    capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S
    photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down
    another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.

    18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all
    the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those
    agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the
    shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will
    always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss
    auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This
    allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S
    cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every
    shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera.

    19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately
    relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate
    preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3
    seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the
    crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100%
    accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot.
    What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess
    in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or
    those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your
    client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter
    speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could
    half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's
    30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without
    ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter
    speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly
    seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize
    what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
    wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.

    20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
    background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use
    of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender
    on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would
    with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject
    at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens
    in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a
    computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the
    focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up
    the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically
    related where DOF is concerned.

    21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs
    with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up
    on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S
    camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S
    camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in
    existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent
    camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs
    you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings.
    Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths
    require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs,
    you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some
    excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
    ISO1600 and more.

    22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any
    way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of
    around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer
    today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award
    winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago.
    If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able
    to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a
    good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they
    NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same
    people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only
    had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I
    will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their
    hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right
    offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that
    they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these
    people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
    photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin
    with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might
    one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is
    that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been
    all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why
    these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras
    instantly reveal to them their piss-poor photography skills. It also
    reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them
    any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth.

    23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
    photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera
    gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile
    and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the
    look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that
    lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being.
    Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that
    time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun
    experience.

    24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth
    mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that
    is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more
    award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home,
    collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack
    or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day.

    25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
    advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you.
    That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS
    STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only
    take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with
    all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're
    not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace.

    26. A good P&S camera can even rival the images produced by a Medium-Format
    Hasselblad H2. Something that no DSLR owner would even think of trying to
    do. Even when the Hasselblad is securely mounted on an expensive and hefty
    tripod, the mirror locked-up, and using a self-timer and cable-release to
    trip the shutter to ensure the utmost in image resolution and clarity;
    while the P&S camera was just set on top of the Hasselblad, HAND-HELD, and
    the shutter tripped with a finger. The images between the two cameras are
    still indistinguishable. Don't believe it? Then you need to enjoy this fun
    read. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

    27. Even the latest DSLR from Canon, the D7, can't beat the image quality
    from their earlier G9 and G11 P&S cameras.
    http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/


    There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more
    than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras
    are just better, all around. No doubt about it.

    The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in
    just one short phrase:

    "If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains
    a foolish thing."
    DSLR-Troll Killer, Dec 2, 2009
    #9
  10. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <0O3Rm.10423$>,
    David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >To compare features side-by-side:
    >
    >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...meras=canon_sx20is,panasonic_dmcfz35&show=all


    Something that article doesn't address: Has Panasonic stopped pulling
    the "proprietary batteries only" trick? I just found out about it AFTER
    ordering batteries from Amazon that were advertized as "fitting" the FZ35.

    The ad may even have been honest as far as it goes...the batteries *fit*
    in the right place, they have the right voltage, they just don't have
    the coded chip.

    --
    Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
    pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
    Autoreply is disabled |
    Paul Ciszek, Dec 2, 2009
    #10
  11. Paul Ciszek

    Wally Guest

    On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:46:57 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
    Ciszek) wrote:

    >I am trying to chose between a Panasonic Lumix FZ35 and a Canon
    >PowerShot SX20 IS. According to one salesman, the Panasonic is
    >supposed to have better quality optics and faster electronics;
    >I don't know enough about photography to tell if this online
    >review is agreeing with that assessment or not:
    >
    >http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/outdoor_results.shtml
    >
    >http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/verdict.shtml
    >
    >Most of my use will be outdoor nature photography, both landscape
    >and ultra-closeup (flowers, lichens, minerals, etc.). I care only
    >about the quality of the captured image; any post-processing I can
    >do on a computer. I do not expect video to play a large role.


    Do you have experience with ultra-closeup photography? It is a
    demanding field. And the closer you get, the more difficult it
    becomes. The depth of field gets very shallow, the lenses become less
    sharp, it is hard to focus, hard to compose, and hard to manage camera
    shake, and it is hard to get enough light on the subject, especially
    quality light.

    I suggest that you spend some time learning about closeup photography
    before deciding which camera to buy.

    To do a good job of closeup photography you will probably need at
    least a DSLR and a macro lens, and you may also need lighting
    equipment, a focusing rail, etc. depending on your requirements.

    That probably was not what you had in mind. The cameras you mention
    will do a fine job of scenics, but I think you will have nothing but
    frustrations if you try to do closeup photography with them.

    Why not borrow a camera and shoot some closeup subjects with it?
    That's easier than reading a whole lot of boring stuff about it. You
    will find out in a hurry what you are up against.

    Wally
    Wally, Dec 2, 2009
    #11
  12. "Paul Ciszek" <> wrote in message
    news:hf4klt$66j$...
    []
    > Something that article doesn't address: Has Panasonic stopped pulling
    > the "proprietary batteries only" trick? I just found out about it AFTER
    > ordering batteries from Amazon that were advertized as "fitting" the
    > FZ35.
    >
    > The ad may even have been honest as far as it goes...the batteries *fit*
    > in the right place, they have the right voltage, they just don't have
    > the coded chip.


    No idea, Paul. The Panasonic cameras I've used had batteries which were
    widely obtainable at good quality and a reasonable price. Same with my
    Nikon DSLRs.

    If your batteries don't work in the FZ35 you would entitled to a full
    refund in the UK as the goods would not be "fit for purpose". Let's know
    what you find.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 2, 2009
    #12
  13. "Wally" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > Why not borrow a camera and shoot some closeup subjects with it?
    > That's easier than reading a whole lot of boring stuff about it. You
    > will find out in a hurry what you are up against.
    >
    > Wally


    Excellent suggestion - although you /can/ take good macro shots with some
    small-sensor cameras given enough light. Their larger depth of field can
    be an advantage for this application. Out in the field we may not be
    talking studio conditions - tripods, focussing rails etc.

    Cheers,
    David
    David J Taylor, Dec 2, 2009
    #13
  14. Paul Ciszek

    Jim...(8-| Guest

    On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 02:50:37 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
    Ciszek) wrote:

    >
    >In article <0O3Rm.10423$>,
    >David J Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
    >>
    >>To compare features side-by-side:
    >>
    >>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/com...meras=canon_sx20is,panasonic_dmcfz35&show=all

    >
    >Something that article doesn't address: Has Panasonic stopped pulling
    >the "proprietary batteries only" trick? I just found out about it AFTER
    >ordering batteries from Amazon that were advertized as "fitting" the FZ35.
    >
    >The ad may even have been honest as far as it goes...the batteries *fit*
    >in the right place, they have the right voltage, they just don't have
    >the coded chip.


    Dunno if that's much of an issue now. I bought a spare battery for my
    compact ZR-1 from eBay that is as good as its claim that it will work
    with the new firmware. Only downside was costing twice as much as the
    cheap jobbos, though was still a third the price of genuine.
    Jim...(8-|, Dec 2, 2009
    #14
  15. Paul Ciszek

    ransley Guest

    On Nov 30, 4:46 pm, (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
    > I am trying to chose between a Panasonic Lumix FZ35 and a Canon
    > PowerShot SX20 IS.  According to one salesman, the Panasonic is
    > supposed to have better quality optics and faster electronics;
    > I don't know enough about photography to tell if this online
    > review is agreeing with that assessment or not:
    >
    > http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/outdo...
    >
    > http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/verdi...
    >
    > Most of my use will be outdoor nature photography, both landscape
    > and ultra-closeup (flowers, lichens, minerals, etc.).  I care only
    > about the quality of the captured image; any post-processing I can
    > do on a computer.  I do not expect video to play a large role.  
    >
    > Does anyone here have any personal experience with either (or better
    > yet, both) of these cameras that they would care to share?
    >
    > --
    > Please reply to:            | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
    > pciszek at panix dot com    |  indistinguishable from malice."
    > Autoreply is disabled       |


    Since outdoors will be your main use a polariser filter will be real
    helpfull, can both cameras take filters, I think the Panasonic does.
    I see AA batteries as a slight benefit, you havnt considered Sony who
    probably makes the sensors for the other companies and usualy their
    own cameras have a bit better performance, but only slightly. On Macro
    you may be dissapointed unless you research more, ive had focusing
    problems with an older similar camera, maybe by now my issues have
    been fixed.
    ransley, Dec 2, 2009
    #15
  16. On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:32:43 -0700, Wally <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:46:57 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
    >Ciszek) wrote:
    >
    >>I am trying to chose between a Panasonic Lumix FZ35 and a Canon
    >>PowerShot SX20 IS. According to one salesman, the Panasonic is
    >>supposed to have better quality optics and faster electronics;
    >>I don't know enough about photography to tell if this online
    >>review is agreeing with that assessment or not:
    >>
    >>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/outdoor_results.shtml
    >>
    >>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_FZ35_FZ38/verdict.shtml
    >>
    >>Most of my use will be outdoor nature photography, both landscape
    >>and ultra-closeup (flowers, lichens, minerals, etc.). I care only
    >>about the quality of the captured image; any post-processing I can
    >>do on a computer. I do not expect video to play a large role.

    >
    >Do you have experience with ultra-closeup photography? It is a
    >demanding field. And the closer you get, the more difficult it
    >becomes. The depth of field gets very shallow, the lenses become less
    >sharp, it is hard to focus, hard to compose, and hard to manage camera
    >shake, and it is hard to get enough light on the subject, especially
    >quality light.



    This is the main drawback of all DSLRs. P&S cameras aren't hindered by all
    these problems. P&S cameras are EXCELLENT for macro and micro photography.
    But then, you'd have to actually have experience with these fields of
    photography to learn and know this.

    I do wish that you inexperienced snapshooters would educate yourselves some
    day.


    >
    >I suggest that you spend some time learning about closeup photography
    >before deciding which camera to buy.
    >


    I suggest that YOU spend some time learning about close-up photography.
    Because, clearly, you know absolutely NOTHING about it.

    >To do a good job of closeup photography you will probably need at
    >least a DSLR and a macro lens, and you may also need lighting
    >equipment, a focusing rail, etc. depending on your requirements.
    >
    >That probably was not what you had in mind. The cameras you mention
    >will do a fine job of scenics, but I think you will have nothing but
    >frustrations if you try to do closeup photography with them.


    How very wrong you are.

    >
    >Why not borrow a camera and shoot some closeup subjects with it?
    >That's easier than reading a whole lot of boring stuff about it. You
    >will find out in a hurry what you are up against.


    Yes, you should try that someday. Then you wouldn't be handing out such
    ignorant snapshooters' nonsense.
    Pretend-Photographers Is All They Are, Dec 2, 2009
    #16
  17. On Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:11:45 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-bit.nor-this-part.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

    >"Wally" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >[]
    >> Why not borrow a camera and shoot some closeup subjects with it?
    >> That's easier than reading a whole lot of boring stuff about it. You
    >> will find out in a hurry what you are up against.
    >>
    >> Wally

    >
    >Excellent suggestion - although you /can/ take good macro shots with some
    >small-sensor cameras given enough light. Their larger depth of field can
    >be an advantage for this application. Out in the field we may not be
    >talking studio conditions - tripods, focussing rails etc.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >David


    sigh ... Another idiot spewing out his troll's crap and nonsense. Due to a
    P&S camera's extra DOF then you don't NEED to stop down the lens to get
    enough DOF. You can take HAND-HELD macro-photography in available light
    conditions where you wouldn't even be able to take that same photo with any
    DSLR at all, ever. You would need ISO's above 128,000 in those situations
    if trying to use a DSLR.

    Get your fuckingly useless and ignorant trolls' heads out of your asses.
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Dec 2, 2009
    #17
  18. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    Wally <> wrote:
    >
    >Do you have experience with ultra-closeup photography? It is a
    >demanding field. And the closer you get, the more difficult it
    >becomes. The depth of field gets very shallow, the lenses become less
    >sharp, it is hard to focus, hard to compose, and hard to manage camera
    >shake, and it is hard to get enough light on the subject, especially
    >quality light.


    My old Olympus did a pretty good job with extreme closeups of
    flowers and lichen. That is one of the few benefits of small
    sensor, small lens, small everything, as I understand it. (It
    makes sense according to physics major type optics, which I
    understand better than photographer type optics.) Light was
    not a problem, not in direct sun with a flash available.

    I realize now that these better cameras with the larger sensors
    may not go as close without special lenses. I still don't think
    I am enough of a photographer to fully utilize, let alone justify,
    a $ingle Len$ Reflex camera.

    >Why not borrow a camera and shoot some closeup subjects with it?
    >That's easier than reading a whole lot of boring stuff about it. You
    >will find out in a hurry what you are up against.


    The decision had to be made in time for Christmas ordering, alas.
    It sounds like I will have to become a more experienced photographer
    in order to regret getting the Panasonic.

    Except for the battery bullshit. I may end up regretting that on
    Christmas morning.

    --
    Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
    pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
    Autoreply is disabled |
    Paul Ciszek, Dec 2, 2009
    #18
  19. Paul Ciszek

    Wally Guest

    On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:43:10 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
    Ciszek) wrote:

    >
    >In article <>,
    >Wally <> wrote:
    >>
    >>Do you have experience with ultra-closeup photography? It is a
    >>demanding field. And the closer you get, the more difficult it
    >>becomes. The depth of field gets very shallow, the lenses become less
    >>sharp, it is hard to focus, hard to compose, and hard to manage camera
    >>shake, and it is hard to get enough light on the subject, especially
    >>quality light.

    >
    >My old Olympus did a pretty good job with extreme closeups of
    >flowers and lichen. That is one of the few benefits of small
    >sensor, small lens, small everything, as I understand it. (It
    >makes sense according to physics major type optics, which I
    >understand better than photographer type optics.) Light was
    >not a problem, not in direct sun with a flash available.


    Well, if an Olympus P&S gave you results that you liked, then you may
    be fine with the Panasonic or the Canon SX20.

    Wally
    Wally, Dec 2, 2009
    #19
  20. Paul Ciszek

    Wally Guest

    On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 16:43:10 +0000 (UTC), (Paul
    Ciszek) wrote:

    >
    >In article <>,
    >Wally <> wrote:
    >>
    >>Do you have experience with ultra-closeup photography? It is a
    >>demanding field. And the closer you get, the more difficult it
    >>becomes. The depth of field gets very shallow, the lenses become less
    >>sharp, it is hard to focus, hard to compose, and hard to manage camera
    >>shake, and it is hard to get enough light on the subject, especially
    >>quality light.

    >
    >My old Olympus did a pretty good job with extreme closeups of
    >flowers and lichen. That is one of the few benefits of small
    >sensor, small lens, small everything, as I understand it. (It
    >makes sense according to physics major type optics, which I
    >understand better than photographer type optics.) Light was
    >not a problem, not in direct sun with a flash available.


    Well, if an Olympus P&S gave you results that you liked, then you may
    be fine with the Panasonic or the Canon SX20.

    Wally
    Wally, Dec 2, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. sobriquet

    Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ38 vs DMC-FZ35

    sobriquet, Oct 4, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,383
    sobriquet
    Oct 4, 2009
  2. Dudley Hanks

    DMC-FZ35 gets (mainly) good review

    Dudley Hanks, Nov 5, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    530
    mianileng
    Nov 6, 2009
  3. Paul Ciszek

    Panasonic FZ35 with and without Teleconverter

    Paul Ciszek, Jan 25, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    2,238
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jan 28, 2010
  4. Bubba

    Difference Between Canon G11 and PowerShot SX20 IS

    Bubba, Apr 9, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    664
    John McWilliams
    Apr 13, 2010
  5. Dave Cohen

    File Size for Panasonic DMC-FZ35

    Dave Cohen, Dec 23, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    590
    John Turco
    Feb 28, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page